Canadian Think Tanks Get Poor Marks for Transparency

Pro-transparency advocate Transparify has just released a new study showing that Canadian think tanks lag behind their US and UK brethren when it comes to funding transparency.

The group rated 14 Canadian think tanks on their levels of online disclosure related to funding, finding that only half of the policy research and advocacy organizations rated are broadly or highly transparent.

Four think tanks (and related organizations), including Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) and International Institute for Sustainable Development, received a top rating of five-starts for being "highly transparent."

Meanwhile, four think tanks were considered "highly opaque" in terms of transparency, including the Fraser Institute, Conference Board of Canada, Montreal Economic Institute, and Pembina Institute.

Here is a Globe and Mail piece on the new report (subscription needed).

The full Transparify report can be found here.  A 2017 Transparify report on UK think tank funding can be found here.  And here is the group's 2016 survey of 200 think tanks in 47 countries.

Transparify was originally funded by George Soros' Open Society Foundations but no longer receives funding from that group.

Sen. Warren Ejects Longtime Scholar from Brookings

It was reported earlier today that Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) was attacking the Brookings Institution for an industry-funded study that one of its scholars co-authored.

Now, the Boston Globe is reporting that the scholar, Robert Litan, has "abruptly cut ties" with Brookings, a think tank he has been affiliated with for around 40 years.   Here is what Litan said:

“I think the Warren letter has created discomfort at Brookings,” said Robert Litan in a telephone interview with the Globe. “I don’t want to make people there feel any more uncomfortable than needed.”

And here is what a Brookings spokesman had to say about the whole incident:

David Nassar, a Brookings spokesman, said that Litan violated a Brookings policy by touting his Brookings affiliation when he gave testimony on his study before Congress. He said that the study “was not connected with Brookings in any way.”

The Hill newspaper notes that Litan has been "forced out" of the think tank, saying he is formally submitting his resignation Tuesday afternoon.

Sen. Warren's letter to Brookings, which is addressed to its President, Strobe Talbott, can be found here.  A press release of that letter can be found here.

Was Brookings scholar Jane Dokko calling out Dr. Litan's paper before today's blow-up?

As seen from another of today's Think Tank Watch stories, Brookings scholars seem to like to complain about other Brookings scholars.

Update: A Washington Post story says that Brookings was seeking a resignation from Dr. Litan, and in return, Dr. Litan complied.  Here is our favorite line from that story:

Her [Warren's] complaint pointed to a relatively new form of influence peddling in the nation's capital, with industry groups and even foreign governments paying think tanks and scholars for research papers that support lobbying goals.

The article also raises an interesting point:

Brookings's action Tuesday could have implications for industry lobbyists who advise clients to fund think tank research to influence policymakers.

Scholars have opened private consultancies, attracting fees from corporate sponsors at least in part because their studies could enjoy the Brookings imprimatur.

Litan, for instance, works with a firm called Economists Incorporated, where his bio describes him as a "non-resident senior fellow" at Brookings.

Here is even more from yet another Washington Post piece on the Warren-Brookings war.  Our favorite lines:

[This incident] could have a chilling effect on scholars who have been perfectly fine letting companies that finance their research review it before publication.

 Brookings is as much a pillar of the Democratic establishment as any institution in Washington.  That President Strobe Talbott moved so quickly to oust Litan underscores just how terrified DC elites from both parties are right now about the rise of pitchfork populism.

Here is a Vox piece entitled "Elizabeth Warren Exposed a Shocking Instance of How Money Corrupts DC Think Tanks."

Think Tank Watch is aware of numerous think tank scholars at a wide variety of think tanks who run their own consulting firms, blurring the line between true scholarly work and work simply for the benefit of a corporate patron.

Sen. Warren Questions Independence of Brookings Institution

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) does not seem to be too happy with the Brookings Institution this week.  Here is more from the Washington Post:

Sen. Elizabeth Warren today takes her ongoing crusade against the outsized influence of the financial services industry to one of Washington's most respected think tanks.  The Massachusetts Democrat is questioning the independence of the Brookings Institution and one of its longtime scholars over a study that criticizes a proposed regulation aimed at reining in conflicts of interest among retirement advisors.

Post reporter Tom Hamburger obtained letters that Warren sent this week to Brookings and the Labor Department.  The Massachusetts Democrat blasts a report by non-resident scholar, Robert Litan, which predicted high costs for a measure backed strongly by progressives, consumer groups and President Obama.

Citing the $85,000 combined fee that Litan and a co-author received from the leading investment firm, Warren calls their report "highly compensated and editorially compromised work on behalf of an industry player seeking a specific conclusion."

Litan, who held senior positions in Bill Clinton's administration, confirmed that the outline for his study was reviewed by its sole sponsor, The Capital Group, which offered some comments.  The investment firm has more than $1.4 trillion under management in its American Funds and other products.  The company, like others handling retirement investment assets, has made opposition to Labor's rule one of its top priorities.

The scholar forcefully rejects Warren's criticism, arguing that he disclosed the funding arrangement repeatedly, including in July testimony before a congressional committee on which Warren sits.  He stressed that the funding did not influence hid study or its conclusions.

But Litan acknowledges one mistake: His testimony overlooked a relatively new Brookings rule prohibiting non-resident scholars - who are generally not paid by the institution - from associating their congressional testimony with the think tank.

Sen. Warren is now demanding more information from Brookings, including information about the think tank's rules for scholarship and congressional testimony.

This news comes as Brookings has faced increased questions about donor impact on its research.

Here is additional reporting on the Brookings-Warren sparring from the Boston Globe.  It notes that a Wall Street Journal op-ed on Litan's research on the Brookings website has a disclaimer about the funding by Capital Group.

It Sen. Warren getting revenge on Brookings for slamming her student loan proposal in 2013?

Think Tank Watch should note that this is not the first time that Sen. Warren has lashed out at think tanks.  Back in 2013, she sent a letter to the US's six largest banks asking them to disclose their donations to think tanks, saying that not doing so threatens the credibility and research of those policy groups.

We should also note that Sen. Warren seems to be taking a liking to none another than the libertarian think tank Cato Institute these days.  She has been quoting Cato and went to the think tank this month to participate in a panel discussion.  Is she angling for a post-Senate job in think tank land?

Stay tuned for more on the Warren-Brookings fight...

Is Manipulation of Data Common at Think Tanks?

Dr. Donald Abelson, an expert on think tanks and author of the book "Do Think Tanks Matter?," was just interviewed by Till Bruckner, a researcher who manages advocacy for Transparify - an initiative promoting greater financial disclosure by think tanks.  [Transparify is funded by Open Society Foundations, a grant-making network founded by liberal billionaire George Soros.]  Here are our favorite questions and answers:

Q:  An article in the New York Times on foreign funding for think tanks caused quite a stir in the United States when it came out in late 2014. What reactions did you encounter as a researcher on the ground at the time?

A:  The impact on the think tanks scene has been significant. The think tanks I regularly contact are now being very cautious about who they speak to, and what information they release, especially in relation to the funding they receive from abroad.


Q:  Many think tanks openly regard advocacy as a core function. Is that a bad thing?

A:  People often think that if a think tank engages in advocacy, its work is tainted. That makes very little sense to me. When hospitals advocate for more beds, everyone thinks that is fine, but when advocacy is associated with think tanks, the assumption is often that they are trying to advance institutional interests over public interests.  Think tanks over time have become highly sophisticated, highly savvy, and employing well orchestrated strategies for shaping public policy is part of that. If advocacy compromises research quality, that needs to discussed. But the reality is that both Brookings and Heritage do similar things. The real question is, what is the quality of their work?


Q:  Between donor demands and dedicated campaigning arms, how can think tanks safeguard their intellectual integrity?

A:  Think tanks encounter considerable pressure in maintaining their intellectual independence, especially when millions of dollars are on the line. Some former think tankers with whom I corresponded for my book told me that they were often asked to manipulate data, or massage their findings to appease donors supporting their research. I have no doubt that this happens more often than we think. Although I cannot name the institutions that former think tank staff commented on, I am aware of this growing problem.


Q: You sound very negative. Do think tanks no longer have a positive contribution to make?

A:  If you look at the direction think tanks are taking in the United States, Canada and Britain, the trend is towards greater advocacy, not pure or applied research. They are looking to position themselves strategically in the market of ideas. By necessity, it's going to taint their findings.  Having said that, think tanks still perform an important function by increasing awareness around a host of domestic and foreign policy issues. They force us to think.


The full interview, in the Huffington Post, can be read here.  More on Donald Abelson, a professor of political science in Canada, can be found here.

Dr. Abelson's current projects include two forthcoming books: Northern Exposure: Revealing the Canadian Think Tank Landscape, and Think Tanks, Foreign Policy, and Geopolitics: Pathways of Influence.